Alert: *NEW* & AMENDED NATIONAL ROAD RULES, FEEDBACK PLEASE

[Keepleft]

Here, you will see at Rule 217 a proposal for a NATIONAL prohibition on the use of FRONT fog lights in clear conditions, as WA and NSW have by way of seperate Regulations to the ARR.

Among many others, submissions close soon.

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Repo...ISNov20051.pdf


Jeremy H. Pritchard
Mot Adv-NSW

[Dave_au]

4.45 Using rear fog lights – Rule 217
Rule 217 prohibits the use of “rear fog lights” other than in fog or hazardous weather
conditions. However, concern has been expressed by all jurisdictions that there is no
similar requirement for the use of “front fog lights”. The ARRMG agrees that “front fog
lights” should only be used in the same circumstances as “rear fog lights”. This will
endeavour to address the carnival effect of multitudes of lights operating on the front of
vehicles, which simply confuses drivers that are being approached. It is intended to
provide definitions of both front and rear fog lights, combine the rule to include both front
and rear, and modify the heading.
The proposed amendment will allow all fog lights fitted to a vehicle, to be used in fog or
other hazardous weather conditions, thereby bringing consistency to the rule.
Impact: Even though this will require a behavioural change for some drivers, it is not
anticipated there will be any adverse impact on all road users.
Costs: The only costs imposed by this amendment are those that accompany the making of
amendments and advice to enforcement agencies and education to drivers. It is expected
that the costs to enforcement agencies and road authorities through education, will be
absorbed in existing processes that provide contemporaneous legislative review.
Benefit: The benefits are to achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect community needs
and expectations, which will assist in reducing road trauma and ensure consistency for the
use of both front and rear fog lights.

[EBII Fairmont]

These people are a bunch of douche bags. Instead of coming up with stupid legislations like this, how about fixing roads which are dodgy and enforcing a system where cameras are used for the purpose of speeding and not revenue making.

Why doesn't the government make its own car forcing everyone to purchase, which will enforce all their dodgy rules and made in a way that the car can sense and know when to come to a complete hault or just to slow down.

I haven't read through the hole thing, so I am hoping that they have some decent ideas on improving safety.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by EBII Fairmont

These people are a bunch of douche bags. Instead of coming up with stupid legislations like this, how about fixing roads which are dodgy and enforcing a system where cameras are used for the purpose of speeding and not revenue making.

Why doesn't the government make its own car forcing everyone to purchase, which will enforce all their dodgy rules and made in a way that the car can sense and know when to come to a complete hault or just to slow down.

I haven't read through the hole thing, so I am hoping that they have some decent ideas on improving safety.

Gee that made sence, NOT. If you don't have anything constructive to say then don't.

[merlin]

Heres some other interesting stuff from these new proposals:

4.9 Giving way when turning at an intersection with traffic lights – Rule 62

Rule 62 describes to whom a driver must give way at an intersection with traffic lights.The definition of traffic lights includes traffic arrows: therefore, a driver turning right at anintersection in accordance with a green traffic arrow must give way to any oncomingvehicle, even though the oncoming vehicle may be proceeding through a red traffic light.
Drivers complying with green lights have an expectation that drivers will comply withopposing red traffic lights, without such a belief, traffic flow would be severely impeded.The proposed amendment seeks to rectify this situation by removing the obligation on adriver turning in accordance with a green traffic arrow, to give way to other road users whohave disobeyed the rules for red traffic lights.

So at present you must give way to someone running a red light!

4.49 Using radar detectors and similar devices – Rule 225
Rule 225 prohibits a person from driving a vehicle if the vehicle has in or on it, a devicefor preventing the use of, or detecting the use of, a speed measuring device. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there have been occasions when these devices have been carried inor on a trailer attached to the motor vehicle. The intent of the ARR was to prevent the use of these devices whether they were in or on the motor vehicle or a trailer attached. It is
intended to clearly state that such a device cannot be in or on a trailer.
The proposed amendments seek to introduce words that prohibit devices for preventing theuse of, or detecting the use of, a speed measuring device, being carried in or on trailers.

Lol - some of you are very creative!

It is suggested by the ARRMG, that walking on the side of the road in the same direction as and immediately adjacent to other traffic, is inherently dangerous. It is intended to require pedestrians, if walking on a road, to walk on the far side of the road so as to face oncoming
traffic unless it is impractical to do so. This will provide the pedestrian greater protection as they will be aware and see all oncoming traffic, enabling them to take some action should the traffic be approaching too close.

Interesting

Additionally, concerns have been expressed by many jurisdictions regarding the carriage ofchildren on the pillion seat of motor bikes, an inherently dangerous practice. It is also intended to prohibit a child under eight years of age from riding as a passenger, unless in a
sidecar.

Not sure what to say here....

4.60 Driver to have proper control of vehicle – Rule 297
Rule 297 requires a driver to have proper control of a motor vehicle at all times. However, there are no specific circumstances that identify proper control. Anecdotally, the incidence
of drivers and riders having children or animals in their laps while driving, is increasing. In such circumstances it is difficult to demonstrate that the driver did not have proper control of the vehicle, unless the behaviour results in a crash. Even so, it is still difficult to prove that the child or animal was a contributing factor. In reality, the unpredictable conduct of a child or animal on a drivers lap, in a moving motor vehicle, is itself an unacceptable safety risk. It is intended to prohibit a driver from driving a motor vehicle
with a child or animal in the driver’s lap. This concept is to be extended to riders of motor bikes with animals being carried on the petrol tank of the vehicle.

: :

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by merlin

So at present you must give way to someone running a red light!

I actually think (correct me if I am wrong) that ANY green light at an intersection means "proceed with caution when safe to do so" or something like that... Not actually "go". Which leads to interesting interpretations...

Anyhow, back on topic about the Fog Lights: I don't care as I don't drive with them on - but come on:

"which simply confuses drivers that are being approached."

No. I see a car with fog lights on and I simply see a car with 4 lights. Wow. The haze and confusion is dumbfounding...

[zetec]

Originally Posted by Deadman

No. I see a car with fog lights on and I simply see a car with 4 lights. Wow. The haze and confusion is dumbfounding...

Ever seen any Commodore made in the last 10 years? The haze and confusion can be momentarily dumfounding and blinding. It only takes a split second to miss that child crossing the road. This is no joke.

[flappist]

YES..... finally a road rule that has an actual sensible purpose.

In clear conditions there is enough bright light without any extra.

Of course the "look at me" brigade will burr up a bit........

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by flappist

YES..... finally a road rule that has an actual sensible purpose.

In clear conditions there is enough bright light without any extra.

Of course the "look at me" brigade will burr up a bit........

I agree.

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

I hope so?
Is it illegal to pass a motorbike in the same lane?

[merlin]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Is it illegal to pass a motorbike in the same lane?

errr yes.

Did you know it is also legal for bikes to ride in Transit lanes and Bus lanes? Pretty good time saver hey?
:

[zetec]

Originally Posted by flappist

YES..... finally a road rule that has an actual sensible purpose.

In clear conditions there is enough bright light without any extra.

Of course the "look at me" brigade will burr up a bit........

Holden sales will halve overnight.

I fully support this.

I also fully support the rule too, couldn't be sooner. Let's just hope Police actually enforce it.

[Terraformer]

Originally Posted by flappist

YES..... finally a road rule that has an actual sensible purpose.

In clear conditions there is enough bright light without any extra.

Of course the "look at me" brigade will burr up a bit........

What a load of rubbish!

How can a vehicle approaching in daylight cause a person to be confused lol

All it does is make them more visible & so is safer not unsafe!

It has nothing to do with look at me rubbish!

Drivers are so poor these days you need to make yourself visible somehow specially when you have a dark vehicle!

Most of us wear sunglasses for driving which cuts back visibility specially in underground carparks & yet many fools do not put lights on when entering such a place or even worse on really dark rainy days!!!

Wake up people & stop whinging about something which does you no harm & is safer for all!!!!

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Terraformer

What a load of rubbish!

How can a vehicle approaching in daylight cause a person to be confused lol

All it does is make them more visible & so is safer not unsafe!

Here, you are directly or indirectly advocating DRL's...


It has nothing to do with look at me rubbish!

It does you know, often.


Drivers are so poor these days you need to make yourself visible somehow specially when you have a dark vehicle!

In which case mate, drivers have always been poor, or have our eyes collectively gotten worse with each birth of a baby??


Most of us wear sunglasses for driving which cuts back visibility specially in underground carparks

I don't wear sunglasses in underground car parks, nor for that matter trenchcoats.


& yet many fools do not put lights on when entering such a place

In Europe is is law that you must use low beam when entering a tunnel and the like. . .

or even worse on really dark rainy days!!!

Agreed, AND it IS an offence to not do so, by using one of the following: Your low-beam hedlights AND/OR front fog lights, which by wiring requirement mean the tail and front position lamps (parkers) come on.


Wake up people & stop whinging about something which does you no harm & is safer for all!!!!

Front fog lights are not daytime running lamps, use your low beam. IF you choose to break the proposed front fog prohibition law and take a chance you won't get booked, then TURN-OFF your low-beam headlights.

This lighting position is the best under seriously reduced visibility AND it allows your front idicators to NOT be masked by the low-beam headlight.

Me? I keep my front fogs off till needed as per design intent. For DRL effect, I use low-beam.

[X ORSMXR]

Spoke to a copper at a car show tonight in Vic and said as long as they are not yellow in color then you can use them ie: the spot lights on the AU and BA at anytime

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by ORSMXR

Spoke to a copper at a car show tonight in Vic and said as long as they are not yellow in color then you can use them ie: the spot lights on the AU and BA at anytime

THAT is a current VIC allowance, THIS will CORRECT that, AND prohibit the use of white-optic AND selective yellow front fog lights in clear conditions, day or night.

I suspect we might (and I support this) get the 50 metre 'visibility maximum' rule for rear fog light use, as in Europe. Meaning these would not be used unless visibility is reduced to 50 metres or less. In England they stipulate 100 metres for both front and rear.

MISSING: Change to SPEED section to clarify the speed derestriciton sign in order to bring ARR into harmony with Australian Standard 1742.4 of 1999 and more importantly the UN Convention (UN) as the signs legal owner.

A High Court appeal on the horizon, maybe. Issue of National Metrology.

Folks DO take time out to read the changes and new rules, read carefully.

[X ORSMXR]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

THAT is a current VIC allowance, THIS will CORRECT that, AND prohibit the use of white-optic AND selective yellow front fog lights in clear conditions, day or night.

I suspect we might (and I support this) get the 50 metre 'visibility maximum' rule for rear fog light use, as in Europe. Meaning these would not be used unless visibility is reduced to 50 metres or less. In England they stipulate 100 metres for both front and rear.

MISSING: Change to SPEED section to clarify the speed derestriciton sign in order to bring ARR into harmony with Australian Standard 1742.4 of 1999 and more importantly the UN Convention (UN) as the signs legal owner.

A High Court appeal on the horizon, maybe. Issue of National Metrology.

Folks DO take time out to read the changes and new rules, read carefully.

Mate you are wrong white light are fine it's just the yellow lights as was explained by a TMU officer

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ORSMXR

Mate you are wrong white light are fine it's just the yellow lights as was explained by a TMU officer

You forgot to mention what state you're in and what a TMU officer is.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by ORSMXR

Spoke to a copper at a car show tonight in Vic and said as long as they are not yellow in color then you can use them ie: the spot lights on the AU and BA at anytime

You can probably drive down a freeway at 60 kph causing all sorts of traffic problems and technically still not be breaking the law. However, it doesn’t mean you’re not a total dickwit for doing it, though.

Originally Posted by qwigybo

I work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's for work, I know there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland. Fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

They also do a terrific job of dazzling truck drivers or anyone else that sits three metres above the ground. If you can’t see without the use of ****er / Fag lights, buy a pair of glasses or better still, hand your licence in so the rest of us don’t have to put up with you. Smacks of the “I’m ok, f**k you, Jack” syndrome. How would you like it if I chose to adjust my low beam upward, so I can see better at night, but dazzling every other car driver on the road?

Sorry to sound a tad harsh, however, you could probably figure that I’m not a fan of ****er lights. :

Cheers, Danny

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

You can probably drive down a freeway at 60 kph causing all sorts of traffic problems and technically still not be breaking the law.

Isn't driving on a 100 or 110km/h freeway at 60km/h breaking the law? No sarcasm or anything, but I thought there was a rule about travelling less than a certain % (or set number) speed on freeways...

And yes - Thankyou to Keepleft for the PDF link, much appreciated

[qwigybo]

i work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's to work there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland, fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

Originally Posted by qwigybo

i work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's to work there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland, fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

Surely you cant be stupid enough to call that an argument!

You can still use them ANY time you like except when there is oncoming traffic ! You can still use them , just use your common sense , thats all !

[AUIII XR8 MAN]

Originally Posted by qwigybo

i work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's to work there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland, fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

My old car had these fog light at the bottom & i did the same thing, pointing them to either side of the road so i could see if anything was going to come out in front of me, which gave me more time to react. Not all of these fog light are bright & shine up into your face.

[GT-E]

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

[MrSparkle]

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

The blanket you throw is infinitely too big. Lane splitting is only dangerous if it is done stupidly, ie. wrong place and wrong time. There are PLENTY of opportunities where it can be done safely.

This rule change won't stop me and a lot of others from doing it. It is remarkable how much I DGAF! :

[merlin]

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

hmmm yeah OK mate, obviosuly you have never ridden a bike :

it is a revenue raising tactic to fleece more money - either that ir a law made by fat 60 year olds who probably find it hard to balance in a Prado.

Originally Posted by merlin

hmmm yeah OK mate, obviosuly you have never ridden a bike :

it is a revenue raising tactic to fleece more money - either that ir a law made by fat 60 year olds who probably find it hard to balance in a Prado.

I have ridden for many years ,but when im in a car and a p!ss week 250cc bike pulls up beside me and expects to take my lane ....FORGET IT, im quicker and it's my lane ,and even if you Merlin were there splitting my lane you would want to be watching the lights and be quick off the mark ,because I sure will ..
You have to earn my lane ,don't slow me down. Well thats the reason you split lane isn't it ,you hate to be slowed down by traffic ,so do I

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Stampy

I have ridden for many years ,but when im in a car and a p!ss week 250cc bike pulls up beside me and expects to take my lane ....FORGET IT, im quicker and it's my lane ,and even if you Merlin were there splitting my lane you would want to be watching the lights and be quick off the mark ,because I sure will ..
You have to earn my lane ,don't slow me down. Well thats the reason you split lane isn't it ,you hate to be slowed down by traffic ,so do I

These "pi$$weak" 250's you sepak of are still going to leve most cars for dead up to the speed limit so I don't see the issue. But really its also common sense on the riders part to - I see why you would split if your not going to take off quickly.

[Big Mike]

I think there's a difference between "fog lights" and "driving lights"...?

I simply 'can't' drive my BMW anywhere on the crappy low-beams. The Driving Lights fill the section of road infront of the car up to the low-beam spread. Thereafter obviously the high-beam kicks in, but certainly in city traffic with on-comming cars, I simply CANNOT SEE the road IMMEDIATELY ahead of me (15-20 metres) without my front driving lights. And while lighting up 500 metres behind me with red looks cool for the unninitiated, I hate pricks who leave rear fog lights on - they are like red HIGH BEAMS and serve a simillar purpose to dedicated FOG lights and high-beams with simillar impact on surrounding vehicles.
That's my two cents - but I'll read through that link soon; a.s.a.p.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

I think there's a difference between "fog lights" and "driving lights"...

In some States, yellow and white lights fog/day/driving lights are called "fog lights" in their respective legislation, I have spent hours researcing this and there are significant differences between the States on the use of driving/fog/day lights and this will rectify this. We are heading further down the National Law route.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

I think there's a difference between "fog lights" and "driving lights"...?

I simply 'can't' drive my BMW anywhere on the crappy low-beams. The Driving Lights fill the section of road infront of the car up to the low-beam spread. Thereafter obviously the high-beam kicks in, but certainly in city traffic with on-comming cars, I simply CANNOT SEE the road IMMEDIATELY ahead of me (15-20 metres) without my front driving lights. And while lighting up 500 metres behind me with red looks cool for the unninitiated, I hate pricks who leave rear fog lights on - they are like red HIGH BEAMS and serve a simillar purpose to dedicated FOG lights and high-beams with simillar impact on surrounding vehicles.
That's my two cents - but I'll read through that link soon; a.s.a.p.

I can assure you of a fine. They are NOT driving lights, this you can see by looking at the CERTIFICATION marking on the lens, the letter "B" TELLS YOU the lamp is a front fog light.

AS MUCH as *you* HATE people using rear fog lights, many feel the same about *you* using front. Calling them 'driving lights' will not protect you from a fine.

A front fog light has a reach generally 10 - 35 metres out and a flat-fan shaped beam pattern.